Democrats are launching a $12 million climate ad campaign with the goal of turning out 2 million “green” voters for the November elections. They imagine the recent passage of the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act,” including its $369 billion spending orgy on wind and solar energy and electric vehicles, will help pull Democratic Senate candidates across the finish line in battleground states.
It’s a curious plan that may be best explained as an election-year payoff from Democratic donors to Democratic media. First, there is absolutely no evidence that climate is at all important to voters in 2022. A recent New York Times poll, in fact, reported that a mere 1% of voters prioritize climate over other issues such as the economy, which garnered 35% of voters.
And climate is not faring any better with voters. In Nevada, where Democrats hope to exploit a hot summer and drought to drag uninspiring party apparatchik Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto past Republican candidate Adam Laxalt, voters aren’t buying climate. A front-page, above-the-fold Washington Post article titled “In fast-warming Nevada, climate bill may not lift Democrats” reports: “Most [voters] said they were focused on providing for their families amid soaring housing costs and gasoline prices. Few of them brought up climate change or were aware the Inflation Reduction Act provided drought relief.”
Cortez Masto pitches, “As you all know, the Western U.S. continues to face a historic drought, and we need to do all we can to combat it.” But voters respond with, “I’ve been not buying a lot of things because I can’t afford it. I’m, like, the kids don’t need juice for school anymore. We’ll just do water.”
The Washington Post reported that many Nevada voters hadn’t even heard about the Inflation Reduction Act and its hundreds of billions in climate spending. And that level of voter ignorance could actually be a good thing for Democrats. Imagine if voters understood that much of the current economic woe was directly traceable to the climate agenda.
Gasoline prices began their rise with President Joe Biden’s climate agenda-driven war against oil drilling. At about the same time, natural gas prices started to rise due to a failure of wind power in Europe. Then all fossil fuel prices took off when the global markets were further strained by the war in Ukraine, an event made possible by Europe’s embrace of the climate agenda.
Since the 1997 climate treaty called the Kyoto Protocol, Europe has been swapping out affordable and reliable fossil fuel energy for wind and solar. Over the decades, Europe became increasingly reliant on imports of Russian coal, oil, and gas to fill the energy gaps caused by intermittent wind and solar power.
Now, as the war rages, Europe is in the painful and uncertain process of cutting itself off from Russian energy, and Russia is responding by making that transition as difficult and painful as possible. By the way, Western energy sanctions against Russia have failed. Russia is making more money selling its higher-priced oil to India, China, and the Middle East.
Energy prices have soared, and supplies have become strained around the world, especially in Europe. Germany is already rationing energy. Brits are paying through the nose for energy. Even nuclear-powered France is uncertain how it will fare through what looks like it could be a very cold winter.
None of this is likely to end soon. When will the war in Ukraine end, and what will be the aftermath? Will Europe return to reliance on Russia? No one knows. The German government expects at least two rough winters ahead.
The climate agenda so far can be summed up in two words: pointless disaster. And more of that is coming to America via the Inflation Reduction Act. Democrats may try to put a happy face on it with their $12 million ad campaign, but voters are too busy struggling with pocketbook issues to pay attention.
Steve Milloy is a senior legal fellow at the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute.
